WSPC00493 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

002214 40 ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA. square miles-could function efficiently only under uni- tary management, able to formulate and supervise a co- ordinated plan that could take account of the diverse, often conflicting interests 'of the people and communities of the Lower Basin States. Recognizing this, Congress put the Secretary of the Interior in charge of these works and entrusted him yvith sufficient power, principally the ~ 5 contract power, to direct, manage, and coordinate their operation. Subjecting the Secretary to the varying, pos- sibly inconsistent, commands of the different state legis- latures could frustrate efficient operation of the project and thwart full realization of the benefits Congress in- tended this national project to bestow. We are satisfied that the Secretary's power must be construed to permit him, within the boundaries set down in the Act, to allocate and distribute the waters of the mainstream of the Colo~ rado River. II. PROVISIONS IN THE SECRETARY'S CONTRACTS. A. Diversions above Lake Mead.-The Secretary's con- tracts with Arizona and Nevada provide that any waters diverted by those States out of the mainstream or the tributaries above Lake Mead must be charged to their respective Lower Basin apportionments. The .Master, however, took the view that the apportionment was to be made out of ,the waters actually stored at Lake Mead or flowing in the mainstream below Lake Mead. He there- fore held that the Secretary was without power to charge Arizona and Nevada for diversions made by them from the 275-mile stretch of river between Lee Ferry and Lake Mead 95 or from the tributaries above .Lake Mead. This ", .J . .' 95 The location of Hoover Dam is a result of engineering decisions. _ ',' . ", -i , . ," . L 'J ' , , ' ('~" I ",.'. As Senato'r Pittman pointed out, "There is no place to impound the flobd waters' except' at I the I~wer end of the canyon." 68 Ccing: Ree. 4413 (1927.).